historical footage - extremely clear dempsey -tunney

Again untrue.

The fight was accurately timed based upon the technical aspects of the film. It was done for a book regarding sports controversies and was timed as 14.50 seconds. Also WW of S did the same and they came up with 14.50 seconds also.

If you watch that timing, frame by frame, it shows that Tunney was looking at the ref and appears he was picking up the count by what would have been the count of EIGHT. The question then is would have Tunney beat the count within those two remaining seconds. For many years I felt that he would have. However I now lean to the belief it would have been close and 50/50 that Dempsey wins by ko.

 

Perry

Without knowing how they figured the time, who knows,

but

Let's assume it is absolutely right that the total time was 14.5 seconds.

It doesn't make all that much difference about how much time was spent arguing with Dempsey. On the film it is 25% of the total time Tunney spent on the floor.

If it was 12 seconds, it means it was 3 seconds before the count started. If it was 14.5 seconds, it was 3.6 seconds before the count started.

I don't think that makes a substantial difference, as Tunney looks as if he can start getting up at about the count of three.

So my bottom line is Tunney could have beaten the count.

"EIGHT"

Even if totally accepting the 14.5 seconds, the count would have been six, not eight, when Tunney comes around.

 

I have read that Tunney said the first thing he clearly remembers is the referee saying "two"

On film he looks at the referee and his head seems to be clear or clearing at "three"

"The count to ten on the floor"

No doubt about this. The question of the count is in a sense moot as it is Dempsey who delayed it by standing behind Tunney.

Watching the film, I think though that Tunney would have beaten the count if it began right away.

 

I should have printed this first as background, to clarify where I'm coming from.
This is just on filming in the silent era--

"One thing you need to know about the old silent movies. Sure they were shot at slower speeds than today's movies. But the main thing is that the camera was hand-cranked. The only form of speed regulation was the cameraman going 'one one thousand, two one thousand' as he rotated the handle. As a result, there wasn't any such thing as a standard silent speed. Old flicks ran at anywhere from 12 to 22 frames per second, with 16 to 20 frames per second being average into the 1920's."

"With the advent of sound in the late 1920's the industry switched to a standard speed of 24 frames per second."

But the Tunney-Dempsey fight was filmed silently. I wasn't there, and so can't be absolutely certain, but the filming was probably hand-cranked--certainly watching it backs that up--so even the projection speed of the film wouldn't necessarily define the filming speed, dependent on the hand-cranking.

So what is the best evidence? I would say the rising and falling of the referee's arm. He should be counting out the seconds along with the timekeeper.

Using that as a guide, I arrive at 12 seconds as the total time Tunney was on the floor.

*I might be wrong, of course, but it is a lot of fun even trying to figure all of this out.

 

The ref started counting after Tunney was on the canvas for a number of seconds (5-5.5). Then the ref counts starting at ONE. BY WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COUNT OF EIGHT-NINE (but was instead the count of 13.50) Tunney appears to be lucid and watching the ref intently. The question is if it was a true count of ten from the time Tunney hit the canvas and indeed Tunney was lucid by the count of eight-nine would he be able to stand up quickly enough to actually beat the count? And without those extra seconds if he had beaten the count would he have been mobile enough to get away from the on charging Dempsey?

The debate of how long Tunney was on the canvas was ending many years ago...its 14.50 seconds.

I used to think he would have beaten the count anyway but today I am not so sure. I now lean that he would not have gotten up in time. Dempsey after losing to Tunney in 1926 may have roared back to ko both the leading contender and the hwt champion in the seventh round each.

 

Perry

Post #66 explains where I am coming from.

"number of seconds (5-5.5)"

But there is only thirteen seconds on this slow motion film between when the count of "one" should have been counted (at 17.56) and when it was counted (18:09). But the count of "eight" was only reached at 18:37 when the film switched to fast-motion for the referee to count "nine." Off the tempo set, this would have meant "nine" came at 18:41 or so at the slow motion pace.

If five to five and one-half seconds had elapsed before the count of one, it took about 18 seconds for the referee to get from one to nine.

Why would anyone focus on sending Dempsey to a neutral corner when the referee would be taking almost two seconds for every count?

I think it far more reasonable that the referee's count really allows us to see how much time elapsed.

"14.50" seconds.

Then your 5.0 or 5.5 seconds is not accurate, as the count after only about 25% of the time Tunney was down, unless you argue the count took 22 seconds.

I don't see how anyone could know the exact time if the filming was done by hand-cranking,

but I'm open to more knowledge on this subject which interests me.

 

Your count is wrong.

For the third time experts greater than you or I have technically timed the count. Tunney was on the canvas 14.50 seconds. End of debate. This is very well known and understood. It's a complete done deal.

Why do you continually want to debate points that are no longer debatable?

 

This ****ysis was completed in a book of filmed sports controversies. The objective was to ****yze the film footage frame by frame and then come to rational and logical conclusions based upon the evidence. The technical ****ysis of the Dempsey Tunney long count was determined to be 14.50 seconds long.

Since that time this ****ysis was completed by others most notably wide world of sports who timed the long count in the same manner and came up with 14.50 seconds.

I don't remember the title of the book but must have been written in the late 60's.

 

"experts greater than you"

There are plenty of those,

but shouldn't we know who these unnamed experts who decided this issue actually are and how much they actually know and what evidence led them to their conclusion.

"want to debate points that are no longer debatable"

Who decides that?

At one point the Earth being the center of the solar system was not debatable.

*appears the experts are the Wide World of Sports in the 1960's. Okay. Thanks for that. Of course I have no idea what they knew about the history of filming or about what impact hand-cranking would have on speed and time in a film.

 

Life is too short to waste on those unable to learn.

I've told you the facts. Do some research and then come back and tell everyone how wrong you were.

Tunney was down for 14.50 seconds. Known and understood boxing history.

 

I've always felt from the footage that Tunney would of beat the count. The question for me was, would he have been clear headed enough to avoid the oncoming Dempsey assault the way he did with the extra time?? No way to know

 

He seemed to be clear headed when he looked at the ref. I believe from that point on he could've gotten up.